In fact, I think we can say with 99.9999% certainty that they won't be. And that they won't be ready in 2019 either, nor 2029. You know when they'll be ready? After the sun goes supernova!
If Canada waits until the Afghanis are able to stand up before we stand down (to paraphrase Bush Jr.), we will be spilling Canadian blood and money over there forever. And in just three to five more years all of our army's equipment will be worn down from the desert sand and nobody that isn't blood-thirsty, mongoloid, or insane will want to join up. Gen. Hillier's scheme to get our army some practise for the real wars of the future will have wound up breaking it instead. Something similar is happening RIGHT NOW South of the border, something that even the most right wing of the right wing crazies are beginning to realize.
Dion is right to want to call this stupid thing off by 2009, and you know he's read the nation correctly (and the pundits and the blo-vators in the blogosphere have not) by the fact that Harper is too chickenshit to make this issue a matter of confidence. He'd be crazy to fight an election on Canadian participation in the Afghanistan campaign, and he knows it.
5 comments:
This fellow must be of the same school as O'Connor.....a warmonger, Conservative. We could send our troops way up north to build and teach and send someone down to Kandahar to take our place
Afghani Army? Or, Afghan army?
The General made an accurate observation.
The timing is unfortunate because of the Tuesday vote coming up in the House.
Afghanistan has never - and will never - have an army. NATO will have a presence there in perpetuity.
I see his comments as the first salvo in softening up the political landscape to prepare for another extension.
is this getting like shades of Iraq or what?
Same wording - you know, when the Iraq army is ready. We won't cut and run, support our troops.
Flip-flop - I'd call it re-assessment - something Bush didn't do.
Thank God this crop of Liberals wasn't around during WWII.
Why is it so difficult for you guys to understand that when you send an army someplace where bad guys have guns, you can't just say "We'll do the office jobs, back in the safe area." It doesn't work that way. These guys aren't trained to fill sandbags in Winnipeg or shovel streets in Toronto - they're where they are to kill as many bad guys as possible. Instead of whining that they aren't behaving like social workers or grief counsellors for the enemy they've just captured, at least give them the credit that they are actually taking prisoners instead of 'not' taking prisoners, as was common practise at the front in WWII.
The only way Iraq will become a Vietnam, is if Liberals get in power before it ends. And that's exactly what happened with Vietnam, the Democrats simply quit fighting before the other side did and THEY lost the way. It was winnable, and was being won, but the Demos controlling Congress cut funding. Oh, they'll get their Vietnam quagmire in Afghanistan and Iraq, if they have to manufacture it themselves.
Yes, anybody who fights for peace, stability, another country is a warmonger. Is Layton a warmonger because he wants to send us to Darfur? Was Martin a warmonger because he sent Canada into Af'stan? The comprehension of all things military is simply anathema to you neo-Comms.
If fighting for something is just too much work, just too much effort for you, then quit bitching and quit hampering the people who will do the job.
Post a Comment